arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Neil Thompson

Publications and source records attributed to Neil Thompson.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

Unmitigated? How are the world's largest companies responding to AI risks?

AI is introducing new risks to large companies and amplifying existing risks, but whether companies are addressing the AI risks they are exposed to is largely untested. We investigated what outsiders can observe: whether companies publicly acknowledge AI risks. We coded public documents from 200 of the largest companies worldwide, collected in early 2026, against the 24 AI risks in the MIT AI Risk Repository, and compared acknowledgements with expert judgements of risk severity, sector vulnerability, and AI role responsibility from a companion Delphi study of 272 AI risk experts. Of the 100 largest companies, 32% did not publicly acknowledge any AI risks. Of the largest 1000 companies, we estimate that 62% [95% CI: 54%, 70%] did not publicly acknowledge any AI risks. Where companies did acknowledge risks, five accounted for over half of all acknowledgements: discrimination, weapons & cyberattacks, fraud & scams, loss of privacy, and devaluation of human creativity. Several risks that experts judged most severe were almost absent: almost no company acknowledged power centralization (concentration of power among those who control advanced AI), competitive dynamics (racing to deploy AI at the expense of safety), or dangerous capabilities. Companies in sectors experts judged more vulnerable to a risk were more likely to acknowledge that risk. But even companies in sectors judged 'extremely vulnerable' to a risk usually did not acknowledge it. Companies with roles experts judged most responsible for addressing a risk were no more likely to acknowledge it than other companies. General-purpose AI developers acknowledged AI misalignment (15%) far less often than discrimination (85%). These findings provide an empirical baseline for the design of AI risk disclosure requirements.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

How exposed is work to robotics? Occupational, industry, and geographic measures

Exposure indices that map technical capabilities onto occupational abilities have become a standard tool for anticipating how AI may reshape work, but existing measures either cover software AI or proxy robotics through patents and installation data that reflect the industrial robots of past decades. We construct the first abilities-based exposure measures for robotics and physical AI, and the first to span occupations, industries, and geographies. Following the framework of Felten et al. (2018, 2021), we build a robotics capability taxonomy of 16 capabilities in eight domains from 78 academic, industry, and standards sources, use a large language model to score the relatedness of each capability to the 52 ONET work abilities, and aggregate to Robotics Occupational Exposure (ROE) for 774 occupations, Robotics Industry Exposure (RIE) for 250 NAICS industries, and county-level Robotics Geographic Exposure (RGE). We find that robotics exposure concentrates in physically intensive work such as construction, farming, transportation, and production, and in industries such as logging, mining, trucking, and warehousing. Unlike generative-AI exposure, ROE is higher in occupations with lower wages, lower education requirements, and less creative-ability content. Physical collaboration and assistance, terrain-based locomotion, grasping and handling, and task and functional reasoning move the exposure ranking most, yet no single capability carries the index. Because the measures capture technical relatedness rather than readiness, cost, or adoption, they should be read as an upper bound on where physical automation could affect work.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Science Is Falling Behind the Frontier: Foundation Model Adoption Across Half a Million Papers

We present the first large-scale analysis of AI foundation model usage in science -- not just citations or keywords. We find that adoption has grown rapidly, at nearly-exponential rates, with the highest uptake in Linguistics, Computer Science, and Engineering. Vision models are the most used foundation models in science, although language models' share is growing. Open-weight models dominate. As AI builders increase the parameter counts of their models, scientists have followed suit but at a much slower rate: in 2015, the mean foundation model adopted in science was 5.4x larger than the mean model being built; by 2024 that relationship had reversed, with the mean model built 6.9x larger than the mean model adopted. We also present suggestive evidence that scientists' use of these smaller models may be limiting them from getting the full benefits of AI-enabled science, as papers that use larger models appear in higher-impact journals and accrue more citations.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Right Order, Wrong Scale: Auditing LLM Judges for Occupational AI Measurement

LLM judges are increasingly used to assess whether AI outputs meet workplace requirements, but agreement on response rankings does not establish agreement on acceptance rates or occupational aggregates. We introduce O*NET-BENCH, an audit suite derived from an existing survey of 45,796 worker ratings, and evaluate 33 pre-existing judge configurations across six model families on 4,501 test ratings. Twenty-five configurations achieve tie-aware pair accuracy of at least 0.60, although a train-fitted response-only TF-IDF baseline nearly matches the strongest judge. Despite this ordering agreement, judges estimate that 3.0%-97.9% of responses are acceptable, compared with 61.1% for occupation-matched workers. In one fine-tuned lineage, changing from pointwise scoring to a bundled few-shot/listwise protocol improves response ordering while reducing agreement with worker means at the task and occupation levels; this reversal replicates on a task- and worker-disjoint validation split under prespecified criteria. Cross-validated calibration largely removes mean bias, but calibrated scores explain at most 8.5% of individual worker-rating variance. Prediction-assisted estimation yields at most small precision gains at the studied label budgets. These results show that ranking agreement alone is insufficient for occupational measurement. Judges should be validated against the acceptance rates and aggregates their scores will be used to estimate.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

AI in Science: Early Insights

Scientific progress is a key driver of economic growth and prosperity. There is great excitement - but also concerns - about the impacts of AI on science, but so far little data. We provide early insights on this from three data sources: a sample of 15 million Gemini interactions, an inventory of over 2,600 specialized AI models across disciplines, and a survey of over 600 scientists. We map these data to a new taxonomy of scientific tasks to study how scientists are using AI. Four main findings emerge. First, we find broad adoption and coverage: scientists use AI more than most other occupations. Specialized AI models have broad disciplinary coverage and are highly cited. Nearly half of the scientists surveyed report using some form of AI every day. Second, we document evidence that LLMs (proxied through Gemini usage) and specialized models act as complements-- LLMs are used for general analysis, coding, and manuscript preparation, while specialized models provide domain-specific predictions, data generation and classification. Third, scientists report large productivity gains from using AI: a saving of nearly 7 hours per week, time which is primarily re-invested in more research. Finally, we show that AI is already changing the scientific process. As some stages of scientific research become easier, bottlenecks shift downstream. Scientists report an increased backlog of untested hypotheses and substantial demand for output verification. Our findings suggest that AI holds significant potential to increase scientific productivity. However, as with other sectors, its ultimate impact will be governed by complex task interdependencies and investment into the elimination of emerging bottlenecks.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

The AI-Enabled Scientific Frontier

As artificial intelligence's capabilities improve, it is increasingly viewed as a general scientific method. But how true are these claims? Does AI outperform all techniques, or only some, and how is this changing? To assess the claims, we assemble a corpus of 2,507 head-to-head comparisons between AI and other scientific analysis techniques across 27 scientific disciplines from papers published between 2000 and early 2025. We find a profound dichotomy. Relative to traditional statistics, AI often outperforms, but at a significantly higher computational cost. But there are also nearly a quarter of cases where AI is both more expensive and performs worse than traditional statistical techniques and this fraction has been stable for a decade. Relative to scientific computing, AI often underperforms, but at lower computational cost. This has begun to change: since 2020, AI's performance against scientific computing has notably strengthened and it now outperforms on more than half of comparisons. These patterns suggest that AI is therefore not a universal replacement for existing methods, but rather a valuable -- and improving -- part of a new AI-enabled scientific frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Mapping U.S. Federal AI Governance Against Sector Vulnerability

Artificial intelligence (AI) poses different levels of risk across sectors, but are these differences reflected in U.S. federal AI governance? To help answer this question, we assess 684 federal AI governance documents for their coverage of 14 sectors and 24 AI risks. We measure coverage as breadth (i.e., how frequently the risk or sector is addressed across documents) and depth (i.e., how substantively the risk or sector is discussed). We then compare sector coverage patterns for each of the 24 risks with vulnerability assessments from a Delphi study of 272 experts. Our analysis finds substantial variation in coverage: AI risks related to robustness, system security, and governance receive more attention than socioeconomic, environmental, and emerging risks, including multi-agent risks. Public administration, national security, information, and scientific services receive comparatively high levels of coverage relative to other sectors, such as finance and healthcare, which experts rate as highly vulnerable to AI risks. By mapping current coverage and identifying where it differs from expert assessments of vulnerability, we surface potential AI governance gaps which may help inform AI risk-related decisions across government and industry.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Assessing Company Contributions to Societal Resilience: Extending the Societal Capacity Assessment Framework to Agentic AI

Companies that deploy AI agents and make them available to others are creating the sociotechnical circumstances under which this technology integrates into existing social and economic structures. AI-deploying companies are institutional actors that actively shape society's capacity to withstand and govern the consequences of agentic AI. In view of these societal impacts, companies can build societal resilience by designing and promoting safer implementations of AI agents. To operationalize this goal, this paper adapts the indicator-based Societal Capacity Assessment Framework (SCAF) to measure how a company's deployment decisions contribute to societal resilience, inverting its original measurement of societal resilience as a backdrop for deployment decisions (Gandhi et al., 2025). Our procedure has two steps: a conceptual step in which we design a suite of indicators that define what SCAF's vulnerability, coping, and adaptive capacities mean when assessing a company's agentic AI deployment decisions; and a measurement step in which we apply this framework in a structured assessment of public-facing Microsoft documents.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Crashing Waves vs. Rising Tides: Findings on AI Automation from Thousands of Worker Evaluations of Labor Market Tasks

We characterize AI automation as a continuum between crashing waves, in which capabilities jump abruptly across narrow task sets, and rising tides, in which capabilities improve continuously and broadly. Using evidence from more than 6,000 text-based, LLM-addressable tasks derived from the U.S. Department of Labor's O*NET taxonomy and over 60,000 evaluations by experienced workers, we find little evidence of crashing waves (contrary to existing views). Instead, rising tides are the primary form of AI progress. AI performance is high and improving rapidly across many tasks. In 2024-Q2, models completed text-based tasks that take humans about 1.5 hours to complete with roughly 60% success, rising above 70% by 2025-Q3. If recent trends in AI capability growth persist, frontier LLMs will be able to complete most text-based tasks at minimally sufficient quality with 88%-97% success by 2030.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

AI Adoption in S&P 500 Firms

The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) by large enterprises is an important potential source of aggregate productivity improvement and labor market impact. We study AI adoption of S&P 500 firms over the period 2016 to 2025, estimating adoption at the enterprise level. While generative AI tools are useful for personal and professional applications, our focus is on the deep integration of AI in the business processes of large enterprises which are bellwethers for firm adoption more broadly. We develop a novel measure to assess deep AI adoption (and distinguish it from AI hype) that is based on SEC 10-K filings, where laws and regulations ``prohibit companies from making materially false or misleading statements." In 2025, 11% of S&P 500 enterprises had AI deeply integrated into their business processes, and a further 10% were using AI in the production of goods and delivery of services. AI adoption has more than quadrupled from 5% in 2022 with slowly accelerating adoption among non-technology firms but very aggressive adoption in the technology sector which accounts for two-thirds of deeply integrated enterprise adoption. Firm profitability shows a "J-curve" as firms move from no adoption to deep adoption, but we observe no differences in capex or productivity. Among technology firms, but not others, AI adoption is higher for firms with more employees and higher values of Tobin's q.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

Two AI Metrics Diverged: Will it Make All the Difference?

As exponential compute scaling continues, will the capabilities of frontier AI models outstrip what is accessible to developers on a small fixed budget? Or will capabilities converge, with "meek models inheriting the earth"? Building on Gundlach et al. (2025b), we show that the answer depends on how we value and measure AI capabilities. We discuss conventional performance measures and show that, while validation loss shows a shrinking gap, on other metrics frontier models grow their lead forever. Classifying performance metrics by their functional forms in relation to training (and inference) compute, we provide tight mathematical conditions for determining which metrics favor meek models, and show that bounded performance metrics always do. But careful interpretation of performance metrics is essential: we show that many common bounded metrics have closely-related counterpart metrics that are unbounded (and vice versa). Determining the apt metric in a domain is a prerequisite for policy, since bounded and unbounded metrics may suggest opposing policy responses. If a particular capability -- like software engineering, synthetic biology, or rhetorical persuasiveness -- is unbounded when measured in the terms we care about, frontier-level capability will likely be concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy actors. Conversely, if that capability is instead bounded, frontier-level capabilities proliferate through meek models into the hands of the many.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

How Much Progress Has There Been in NVIDIA Datacenter GPUs?

As the role of modern Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) becomes increasingly essential for several computing tasks, analyzing their past and current progress is paramount for determining future constraints on scientific research. This is particularly compelling in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) domain, where rapid technological advancements and fierce global competition have led the United States to recently implement export control regulations limiting international access to advanced AI chips. Consequently, this paper examines technical progress in NVIDIA datacenter GPUs from the mid-2000s through 2025. Our main results identify doubling times of 1.43 and 1.67 years for FP16 and FP32 dense operations, while FP64 doubling times range from 2.05 to 3.79 years. Off-chip memory size and bandwidth have grown at slower rates than computing performance, doubling every 3.29 to 3.41 years, whereas the release prices and power consumption roughly doubled every 5.03 and 15 years, respectively. Moreover, our cross-vendor comparison of the top-performing GPUs per year shows that NVIDIA's performance advantage is narrowing, but not enough to compel a major market shift. Finally, we quantify the potential implications of current U.S. export control regulations and the consequent performance gaps, which the recently proposed policy changes could shrink from 23.6X to 3.54X.

cs.AR↗
arXiv2026

The AI risk repository: A meta-review, database, and taxonomy of risks from artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping society, from video generation to medical diagnosis, coding agents to autonomous vehicles. Yet researchers, policymakers, and technology companies lack shared terminology for discussing AI risks. Consider "privacy": one framework uses this term to describe a model's ability to leak sensitive training data, while another uses it to mean freedom from government surveillance. Conversely, researchers have introduced "Goodhart's law," "specification gaming," "reward hacking," and "mesa-optimization" to describe the same phenomenon of AI systems optimizing for measured proxies rather than intended goals. This terminological diversity creates friction: comparing findings across studies requires mapping between frameworks, and comprehensive risk coverage requires consulting multiple taxonomies that use different organizing principles. This paper addresses this challenge by creating a comprehensive catalog of AI risks. We systematically analyzed every major AI risk framework published to date-74 frameworks containing 1,725 distinct risks-and organized them into a unified system. Our two classification systems reveal important patterns: contrary to common assumptions, human decisions cause nearly as many AI risks (38%) as the AI systems themselves (42%). The work provides practical tools for anyone working on AI safety, from developers conducting risk assessments to policymakers writing regulations to auditors evaluating AI systems. By establishing a common reference point, this repository creates the foundation for more coordinated and comprehensive approaches to managing AI's risks while realizing its benefits.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Is there "Secret Sauce'' in Large Language Model Development?

Do leading LLM developers possess a proprietary ``secret sauce'', or is LLM performance driven by scaling up compute? Using training and benchmark data for 809 models released between 2022 and 2025, we estimate scaling-law regressions with release-date and developer fixed effects. We find clear evidence of developer-specific efficiency advantages, but their importance depends on where models lie in the performance distribution. At the frontier, 80-90% of performance differences are explained by higher training compute, implying that scale--not proprietary technology--drives frontier advances. Away from the frontier, however, proprietary techniques and shared algorithmic progress substantially reduce the compute required to reach fixed capability thresholds. Some companies can systematically produce smaller models more efficiently. Strikingly, we also find substantial variation of model efficiency within companies; a firm can train two models with more than 40x compute efficiency difference. We also discuss the implications for AI leadership and capability diffusion.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

The Impact of Approximation on Algorithmic Progress

In nearly every discipline, scientific computations are limited by the cost and speed of computation. For example, the best-known exact algorithms for the canonical Traveling Salesman Problem would take centuries to run on an instance of size 1 million. A natural response to such limits is to try to find new algorithms or to parallelize existing ones, but many algorithms are already at their theoretically-optimal level and parallelization is often impossible or prohibitively expensive. Starting in the 1960's, computer scientists pursued another solution: allowing solutions to have a small amount of error (i.e. approximating them). In this paper, we survey 118 of the most important algorithm problems in computer science, quantifying the gains and tradeoffs from approximation that have been discovered over the history of the field. Overall, only $\approx$20\% of problems have benefited from approximation. However, those with good approximate algorithms can be dramatically faster to compute with little cost to accuracy. For example, a quarter of computationally intractable problems (e.g. those that take exponential time to compute) have polynomial time approximate algorithms. Approximation also increases the number of algorithms that can run in linear time by 23\%, opening up new computational opportunities for those working in the big data regime. This work also sheds light on what should be expected from progress in AI, where approximation is at the heart of how deep learning works.

cs.DS↗
arXiv2026

Economics of Human and AI Collaboration: When is Partial Automation More Attractive than Full Automation?

This paper develops a unified framework for evaluating the optimal degree of task automation. Moving beyond binary automate-or-not assessments, we model automation intensity as a continuous choice in which firms minimize costs by selecting an AI accuracy level, from no automation through partial human-AI collaboration to full automation. On the supply side, we estimate an AI production function via scaling-law experiments linking performance to data, compute, and model size. Because AI systems exhibit predictable but diminishing returns to these inputs, the cost of higher accuracy is convex: good performance may be inexpensive, but near-perfect accuracy is disproportionately costly. Full automation is therefore often not cost-minimizing; partial automation, where firms retain human workers for residual tasks, frequently emerges as the equilibrium. On the demand side, we introduce an entropy-based measure of task complexity that maps model accuracy into a labor substitution ratio, quantifying human labor displacement at each accuracy level. We calibrate the framework with O*NET task data, a survey of 3,778 domain experts, and GPT-4o-derived task decompositions, implementing it in computer vision. Task complexity shapes substitution: low-complexity tasks see high substitution, while high-complexity tasks favor limited partial automation. Scale of deployment is a key determinant: AI-as-a-Service and AI agents spread fixed costs across users, sharply expanding economically viable tasks. At the firm level, cost-effective automation captures approximately 11% of computer-vision-exposed labor compensation; under economy-wide deployment, this share rises sharply. Since other AI systems exhibit similar scaling-law economics, our mechanisms extend beyond computer vision, reinforcing that partial automation is often the economically rational long-run outcome, not merely a transitional phase.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

The Price of Progress: Price Performance and the Future of AI

Language models have seen enormous progress on advanced benchmarks in recent years, but much of this progress has only been possible by using more costly models. Benchmarks may therefore present a warped picture of progress in practical capabilities *per dollar*. To remedy this, we use data from Artificial Analysis and Epoch AI to form the largest dataset of current and historical prices to run benchmarks to date. We find that the price for a given level of benchmark performance has decreased remarkably fast, around $5\times$ to $10\times$ per year, for frontier models on knowledge, reasoning, math, and software engineering benchmarks. These reductions in the cost of AI inference are due to economic forces, hardware efficiency improvements, and algorithmic efficiency improvements. Isolating out open models to control for competition effects and dividing by hardware price declines, we estimate that algorithmic efficiency progress is around $3\times$ per year. However, at the same time, the price of running frontier models is rising between $3\times$ to $18\times$ per year due to bigger models and larger reasoning demands. Finally, we recommend that evaluators both publicize and take into account the price of benchmarking as an essential part of measuring the real-world impact of AI.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2025

Mapping AI Risk Mitigations: Evidence Scan and Preliminary AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy

Organizations and governments that develop, deploy, use, and govern AI must coordinate on effective risk mitigation. However, the landscape of AI risk mitigation frameworks is fragmented, uses inconsistent terminology, and has gaps in coverage. This paper introduces a preliminary AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy to organize AI risk mitigations and provide a common frame of reference. The Taxonomy was developed through a rapid evidence scan of 13 AI risk mitigation frameworks published between 2023-2025, which were extracted into a living database of 831 AI risk mitigations. The mitigations were iteratively clustered & coded to create the Taxonomy. The preliminary AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy organizes mitigations into four categories and 23 subcategories: (1) Governance & Oversight: Formal organizational structures and policy frameworks that establish human oversight mechanisms and decision protocols; (2) Technical & Security: Technical, physical, and engineering safeguards that secure AI systems and constrain model behaviors; (3) Operational Process: processes and management frameworks governing AI system deployment, usage, monitoring, incident handling, and validation; and (4) Transparency & Accountability: formal disclosure practices and verification mechanisms that communicate AI system information and enable external scrutiny. The rapid evidence scan and taxonomy construction also revealed several cases where terms like 'risk management' and 'red teaming' are used widely but refer to different responsible actors, actions, and mechanisms of action to reduce risk. This Taxonomy and associated mitigation database, while preliminary, offers a starting point for collation and synthesis of AI risk mitigations. It also offers an accessible, structured way for different actors in the AI ecosystem to discuss and coordinate action to reduce risks from AI.

cs.CY↗